The Case for Regulating Social Media as Public Utility Companies

If you’re reading the alternative media (also known as the real media) constantly, you’re probably aware of the fact that world’s tech giants are currently engaged in an unprecedented campaign of censoring free speech on their platforms. The whole thing about censoring dissenting views is as old as internet, and even older, provided there was anything prior (just kidding), but since Donald Trump got elected back in 2016, with a little help from the armies of Keks shooting memes and various red-pills right and left via Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, the same corporate behemoths have decided that enough is enough, i.e. this should never happen again.

The problem with social media is that its owners are on the left side of the force, as in they’re firm believers in social justice, safe spaces, political correctness etc, which finally translates into censorship if it’s for a good cause, i.e. if it serves their current political agenda. Things got so mad lately, that whole Facebook groups with hundreds of thousands of users get zucced almost daily (I am exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect), YouTube routinely censors/demonetizes wrong-think (conservatives/pro Trump) creators and Twitter&Facebook ban/shadow- ban users on a whim. Google went so far as to steal Daily Stormer’s domain, basically banning them from the internet. Other companies followed Google’s 1984 example. And it was all because of a joke, regardless of how good or bad.

Now, the first amendment in the US Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Reality check: when the Founding Fathers wrote the first amendment regarding the freedom of speech or of the press (basically political discourse shall not be infringed), well, the ‘press’ then meant papers, and it was completely decentralized, as in it wasn’t in the hands of 5-6 corporations, as it’s the case today. Also, there was no internet back in the 18th century, or at least none that I’m aware of.

We’re in the situation now when social media platforms cannot be used anymore for the free exchange of ideas. There can’t be true debate on Twitter or Facebook anymoer, if it’s “controversial”. And that’s a big problem. I know the argument: Facebook, Google et al are private companies, blablabla. So, they have the right to allow or disallow whatever speech they want on their platforms. So, they have free-hand with regard to censoring what they see fit. Or not compliant with their terms of service. After all, their services are free of charge, “innit m8”? And no one’s twisting your arm to use Google services, or Facebook, or Twitter. And that’s a fair argument, if you’re not paying attention to the real world.

Here’s where this becomes a grey issue: in the US, it was recognized from the very beginning of our history that free speech, open dialog, the exchange of ideas and opinions, debate, are absolutely necessary for the preservation of the free nation. It wasn’t just a matter of “being nice”.

This issue was so important for our Founding Fathers, that it was enshrined as the first amendment in the bill of rights. Back then, when people’s minds weren’t infected with cultural Marxism aka left wing dogma/collectivism, it was understood that free speech in the public square is something that you don’t censor and don’t mess with. That’s why even extremely controversial groups today have the right to go out and engage in protests in parks, or on sidewalks or whatever, whether they’re on the left or on the right side of the force. Out in the public square, you can’t infringe on people’s rights to express themselves. It’s very simple.

Here’s the elephant in the room: the internet/social media revolution has redefined what constitutes the “public square”. Shockingly enough, back in the day, when our nation was born, they didn’t have the internet, but instead people gathered together in places like the Boston Commons, and talked with each other, they “networked” etc. The idea of stopping these people from getting together and discussing/debating current issues it was ridiculous at the time. Nowadays, people don’t get together under the old oak tree anymore, or in the middle of town in the public square to debate things. And when some of us do, Antifa appears and starts busting people’s heads, but that’s another matter.

Our public square is now social media, which is controlled (basically monopolized) by private corporations like Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. What these companies have done is they have taken this place/forum, which is the primarily location for public discourse, and they have essentially privatized free speech in the public square, which is now subject to their arbitrary terms and conditions/terms of service, and all of those institutionalized biases of the corporations themselves.

The right of free speech in America is now literally privatized, as social media giants get to decide what speech is allowed and what speech is not allowed on their platforms, i.e. which citizens are allowed to speak, and which ones are not allowed, depending on their political views. Considering how powerful and influential these 3-4 corporations have become, they should be regulated as public utilities, just like we regulate electricity and water, so that private corporations can’t come in and take away these things from us by jacking up the prices etc. What are your thoughts?

By the way, Infowars has launched a huge new petition to force social media companies to end the practice of shadow banning and algorithm-based censorship